The other weekend I attended a retirement party for a neighbor, Kenneth R. Hughey. He is retiring as a Deputy City Attorney to go into a private criminal defense practice with a good friend. This will be his fourth career: he is 79 and a true American Hero!

            Ken started his first career at age 17 by enlisting in the Air Force. While in the Air Force, in 1963, he earned a B.S. degree in aeronautical engineering from the University of Colorado. During the Vietnam War (1965 to July 1967), he flew the most sorties ever flown in combat before and since – 564 missions to be exact (of which 106 were over North Vietnam). Unfortunately, on July 6, 1967, he was shot down over North Vietnam and taken as a POW. He spent 6 years as a POW, with five months of it in complete isolation. Some of his time was also spent at the Hanoi “Hilton” along with Sen. John McCain. For the first 31/2 years, his wife did not even know if he was alive or dead.

            Ken was finally released as a POW on March 4, 1973. He returned to college and obtained a masters degree in English. In 1979, when he retired from the Air Force as a colonel, he did so with two Silver Stars, three Distinguished Flying Crosses, two Bronze Stars and four Purple Hearts.

            Ken then went to work for Hughes Aircraft Company. While working full time at Hughes, he went to law school at night and on weekends. At age 65, he became a member of the California State Bar (and probably one of the oldest to pass the bar!)

            As a tribute and sign of great respect for Ken (if not affection), more than 80 people attended his retirement party, including the City Attorney (The Honorable Carmen A. Trutanich), several judges and commissioners of the City of Long Beach. As is typical, several of them got up to say a few words about Ken. One of them was a superior court judge who talked about jury trials in which Ken participated as the Deputy City Attorney. He commented on how so many of us try to avoid jury duty and get out of it any way we can (me included!) So – after every trial concludes in which Ken participated – he tells the jury about Ken’s background including the 6 or so years as a POW and the over five months in complete isolation. He makes this point; if Ken can give  up 6 years of his life for the United States and what it stands for, we – as citizens, can give up a few days – if not just 1 day (under California’s one day/one jury system) – as a juror so that our fellow citizens get their “day in court” – in our democratic society. Sitting in a jury room all day pales to sitting in the “Hanoi Hilton”!

            At the conclusion of the party, I went up to the judge to tell him how much I was struck by the point he made. Never again will I try to get out of jury duty.

            I know this blog has little to do directly with mediation and dispute resolution – but indirectly it does. We should not let ourselves get caught up in the small stuff and lose sight of the forest for the trees. Yes – we all have disputes – but let’s try to put them in perspective. Most of them pale to the “disputes” that Ken Hughey has encountered

            . . . Just something to think about!

If you enjoy this blog, and want to receive it weekly via RSS Feed, click here:http://www.pgpmediation.com/feed/http://www.pgpmediation.com/feed/ or via FeedBurner email subscription, then enter your email address under the word “Subscribe” to the above right and click on the “Subscribe” button

            A few weeks ago, my colleague Maria Simpson, PhD., in her weekly Two Minute Training (February 15, 2011), mentioned a story she had heard the previous day on National Public Radio’s Morning Edition about a pre-school that was teaching conflict resolution to four year olds. Contrary to what occurs in most pre-schools, while these pre-schoolers had lots of energy and were very active, they did not fight, yell or whine.

            Intrigued, I hunted down the story on NPR and learned that the school was The Clara Barton Children’s Center in Cabin John, Maryland (http://clarabartoncenter.org/), and passed this information on to my colleague.

            But, I was still curious about this success of conflict resolution among 4 year olds. So was my colleague as she took up this topic again in her next Two Minute Training column on February 22, 2011. It seems that this school employs a “Solution Kit” provided by the Center on the Social and Emotional Foundations for Early Learning (CSEFEL) at Vanderbilt University (http://csefel.vanderbilt.edu./). This “Solution Kit” is simply a poster that, using pictures, shows 10 different ways to end an argument:

1.  “Get a teacher” (i.e., use a mediator or a third party objective neutral.);

2.  “Ask nicely” (i.e., have a calm non-confrontational conversation about the issue; make it a conversation of curious inquiry, not a cross-examination.);

3.  “Ignore” (i.e., don’t react to negative personal attacks ; let them roll off your back, remain focused on the needs and interests of the parties or on the issues; NOT on the person.);

4.  “Play together” (i.e., work co-operatively and together to create options by which each party will gain, thereby developing a “win-win” resolution.);

5.  “Say “Please Stop”” (i.e., have a discussion about the opposing and/or conflicting underlying needs and interests of each party and how best to meet them; again, focus on the interests of each party and create options that will meet each party’ s needs.)

6.   ”Say, “Please”” (i.e. be polite and respectful  to the other party; separate the people from the problem – be soft on the person, but hard on the problem.);

7.  “Share” (i.e., compromise; do not engage in distributive bargaining in which the goal is that one person wins, and the other loses (zero sum game) but rather engage in integrative bargaining by which both parties “win” by compromising.);

8.  “Trade” (i.e., engage in “give and take”. Prioritize your interests and  concede issues that may be of little value to you but important to the other party in exchange for ones that ARE important to you but of little value to the other party so that each party obtains what is important to her.);

9.  “Wait and Take Turns” (i.e., be patient; actively listen – really listen, and don’t interrupt – to what the other party is saying so that you can understand what are the needs and interests of the other party and thus be able to figure out collaboratively how to meet both her needs and interests and yours.); and

10. “Get a Timer” (i.e., use the element of time as a way to resolve the dispute either by setting a time limit on the discussions which will force the parties to focus and concentrate on the issues: or by setting up a timetable by which certain elements of the resolution must be accomplished (e.g. an installment plan).)

(http://csefel.vanderbilt.edu/modules/2006/solutionkit.pdf)

      If four year olds can grasp these basic concepts of conflict resolution, shouldn’t we adults be able to so, as well?

      When I first read about this “Solution Kit”, my initial reaction was to get a hold of one and send it to Congress. I am still half toying with the idea of doing so! In the meanwhile, perhaps there are some other adults amongst us that could benefit from its use, as well.

        . . .Just something to think about! 

If you enjoy this blog, and want to receive it weekly via RSS Feed, click here:http://www.pgpmediation.com/feed/http://www.pgpmediation.com/feed/ or via FeedBurner email subscription, then enter your email address under the word “Subscribe” to the above right and click on the “Subscribe” button

            I conducted a “lemon law” mediation last week. It was a bit unusual in several ways. First, the repair history indicated that there were multiple issues with the vehicle that, despite innumerable days in the repair shop, had not been fully resolved: one or two of the many issues kept recurring.

            After reading the repair history, my first question to myself was why were these parties even coming to mediation? Why had not the vehicle been repurchased already? Having conducted several hundreds of these mediations, I guessed that the answer could be “outside influence” or “non-warrantable defect”. That is, Defendant believed that some third party – not necessarily the plaintiff -had tinkered with the vehicle to cause or create the concerns at issue. But usually, the fancy computers on these vehicles will reveal a pattern that arouses suspicion and/or such suspicions are reflected on the repair orders. But, looking at the repair orders again – usually verbatim of what the service advisors have written and what the technicians did and found – no such “suspicions” revealed themselves. So what was going on? I had to wait until the mediation to find out.

            As usual, I started with a joint session so that the parties could have a candid discussion of the repair history, the concerns at issue and insure that everyone was focusing on the same issues. But, unlike other mediations (and the second unusual thing about this mediation), the joint session never concluded: after some joint discussion, the defendant wanted to speak separately with counsel.

            For the next hour or so, that separate session occurred: Defendant was using the time to really and carefully review the matter to determine what stance to take. It seems that prior to the mediation, the defendant had concluded not to repurchase the vehicle, basing that decision on a suspicion of “outside influence”; I was told that the plaintiff was associated with others who had had their vehicles repurchased – i.e., “guilt by association”.

            When plaintiff’s counsel took great umbrage at defendant’s stance during the joint session and after actually meeting the plaintiff and evaluating her credibility, defendant went into a separate session to rethink its position.

            The mediation concluded without a resolution as defendant wanted to speak with others about how best to resolve this matter, i.e., should the vehicle be repurchased, after all?

            But, the next unusual thing about this mediation was that plaintiff’s counsel sent me an e-mail (in the form of a poem). It lyrics made me stop and pause. In essence, counsel noted that her client had been victimized and her veracity put into question by assumptions that the defendant had made automatically and without really investigating (i.e., “guilt by association”). Then, when plaintiff refused to accede to the defendant’s demand to settle for a minimal amount of funds, defendant became even more upset. Counsel continued:

“Maybe the problems lies much deeper in the hearts of our system today

the money a plaintiff takes should not just be

a function of what the plaintiff will take to go away

instead it should be tied to the wrong in question

the thing that has provoked the client to seek legal intervention

that way clients may not feel that they have won some pot of gold

but perhaps they will feel that someone cares about the story they have told.”

            Have we become too cynical? Are we all just going through a pre-scripted exercise except for the plaintiff who has become an interchangeable fungible? Have we become too detached, to the point that we have forgotten that to this plaintiff, this is not just another file to be dealt with, but it is her vehicle, her time going to and from the repair shop, her aggravation and frustration in having to make car payments every month for a vehicle that she cannot use because it is always in the shop? To her – it is very real, not just another matter to be dealt with in a long day at the office.

            Life is real: everyone  has a story and everyone needs to tell it and, more importantly, to be listened to. We cannot allow ourselves to lapse into “it’s just another dispute/mediation file” but, instead, must force ourselves to remember that we are all “human” and we are all a part of “humanity.”

            . . .Just something to think about. 

            Postscript; The matter settled a few days after the mediation with Defendant repurchasing the vehicle.

           If you enjoy this blog, and want to receive it weekly via RSS Feed, click here:http://www.pgpmediation.com/feed/http://www.pgpmediation.com/feed/ or via FeedBurner email subscription, then enter your email address under the word “Subscribe” to the above right and click on the “Subscribe” button

            Hoping to relax and rejuvenate, I took the week off between Christmas and New Years’ (even from blogging) and spent it at our condo in Palm Desert. What I did not count on was encountering my own dispute – up close and personal – against an unyielding bureaucracy. While I am a strong advocate of mediating not litigating disputes, I, once again, understand why at times one has to threaten litigation to get the other party to resolve a dispute.

            It all started on Christmas Eve when we received the water bill from the Coachella Valley Water District (“CVWD”). While according to CVWD, we used about 6 CCF (CCF = one hundred cubic feet where 1 CCF = 748 gallons) or about 4,488 gallons of water in November 2010, CVWD was now claiming we had used 67 CCF (or 50,116 gallons) during the 27 day period between meter readings (11/20/10 to 12/17/19). Interestingly, we were there only 4 of those days – over Thanksgiving; otherwise, the condo – with a small side yard (no pool, no spa)  – was vacant.

            I, immediately, called our gardener and asked him to provide me with a meter reading and to shut off the water. He did so. Not surprisingly, when we arrived at the condo two days later, the meter had not moved at all. Thus, I knew we had no leaks between the meter out on the street and the water shut off valve on the side of the condo.

            Having previously gone through these aberrant meter readings with the CVWD on 2 prior occasions, I knew that if I called to complain, the customer service clerk would simply tell me that perhaps I have a leak under the condo or in the sprinkler system. From this past experience, I knew that the CVWD employee would be quite unsympathetic and unyielding taking a “scorched earth” position of that is what the meter says and so pay it. The clerk would never admit that perhaps someone read the meter incorrectly or some other error occurred.

            So, I called a plumber who tested for leaks within and under the condo. As I expected, he found no leaks. He also tested the sprinkler system and again – as I expected – no leaks.

            In addition, we had the gardener come by and while I watched the water meter, he turned each sprinkler station on. Again – no surprises – each station ran smoothly; the water meter did not start moving crazily.

            This time, I had my husband call  CVWD customer service and present the clerk with all of the evidence. (I thought a man might get a better reception.) The clerk was still unyielding; the clerk pointed out that according to the meter and the readings he gave her, we have used even more water this month (35 CCF or 26,180 gallons of water in ten days!) than last month and so our bill will be even higher. The only thing she suggested was to have a meter technician come out and “test” the meter. We made the appointment for later this week.

            In the meantime, I spent my vacation reading my water meter a few times each day and doing the math to calculate how many gallons of water we consumed. I have now become an expert meter reader! My calculations were in line with the amounts consumed as reflected on previous water bills before all of this nonsense arose, (or for those months for which I did not receive aberrant water bills).

            After reading the meter continually for a week, I have no doubt that the meter is not faulty; it was the person reading the meter who did so incorrectly or some other erroneous event causing the crazy water bill.

            So, I strongly expect that when the CVWD technician comes out this week to test the meter, she will find it to be without fault. The trick will be to convince CVWD that someone read the meter incorrectly: 50,116 gallons of water had to go somewhere and if this amount went into the soil (via the sprinkler system as CVWD is so quick to claim) the yard would be muddy – if not one huge sink hole – to say the least. This much water simply does not disappear into thin air!

            Although I have written a very detailed letter to the CVWD protesting the bill, I have been told that I may have to threaten suit, if not actually file one, to convince CVWD to adjust the bill. CVWD takes an unyielding – “take no prisoner” – approach and only backs down when law suits are threatened.

            It is rather silly that I have put so much time and effort into disputing a $235.00 water bill (as well as incur the expense of the plumber and my gardener). To this I respond: “it is the principle of the thing!” I have heard this refrain so many times as a mediator and have responded with pragmaticism (“get over it, settle the dispute and move on”). But, telling myself to be pragmatic gets me nowhere, here. No one likes to be cheated, and my frustration grows when the other party – CVWD – will not even acknowledge that there may be “something” wrong. While, as a mediator, I have always understood these concerns; as a disputant, these concerns are now really upfront and personal to me. I am unable to take my own mediation advice –be pragmatic, pay it and move on! Rather, I am willing to get even sillier by filing suit in a small claims court that is 150 miles away, to fight this bill, if I have to.

            I guess it is one thing to be an objective third party mediating other parties’ disputes, and quite another to be in the middle of one, yourself. I am learning that it is not always so easy to overlook “principles” for the sake of putting “it” behind you and that litigation or the threat of it is sometimes, the only way to resolve things.

            . . .Just something to think about!      

 If you enjoy this blog, and want to receive it weekly via RSS Feed, click here:http://www.pgpmediation.com/feed/http://www.pgpmediation.com/feed/ or via FeedBurner email subscription, then enter your email address under the word “Subscribe” to the above right and click on the “Subscribe” button

            Each year, the Southern California Mediation Association (SCMA) presents its Cloke-Millen Award also known as Peacemaker of the year award to a member of the dispute resolution community who has honored and inspired us through his/her passion and dedication to “peacemaking.”

            This year, SCMA truly went “outside the box” in determining who should be the honorees. They are 15 women, each of whom are responsible for the death of at least one person, many of whom are serving life sentences for their crime, at Valley State Prison for Women in Chowchilla, CA. (Seventy percent of them committed these homicides as a result of being in an abusive/domestic violence relationship.) They are “peacemakers” in the truest sense of the word.

            How does this story begin? Beginning in 2007, one of them, Susan Russo, wrote over 50 letters to various mediators throughout California requesting training for inmates. One of these letters landed in Laurel Kaufer’s mailbox in August 2009. The instant she read it, she was hooked. Knowing that she could not do this project alone, Ms. Kaufer called her colleague, Doug Noll, an expert in Restorative Justice, and read the letter to him. He, too, was hooked, and for the next six months, they tried to convince authorities to allow them to conduct this pro bono project. They finally obtained permission and started in April 2010 with the first group of 15 women. Twelve weeks later, these 15 women were fully trained and through mediations and peace circles, they have begun to reduce conflict and violence within the prison, slowly replacing the conflict and violence with “peace.”

            Laurel Kaufer, an SCMA member, knew of our Peacemaker award and called me (since I am the president) to nominate this first group. Once the SCMA board and I understood what was what, without hesitation, we agreed and voted to present the award to these ladies.

            Saturday, October 2, 2010 was Peace-Day – a fitting day on which to present the award. So I (with my husband playing chauffeur) went to the prison to make the presentation.

            It was a privilege and honor to make this presentation. It was also a deeply moving and profound experience. At times, in talking with these ladies, I was left speechless (which is rare for me!) These women are phenomenal. Through this program, these ladies have turned their lives around.

            Laurel Kaufer and Doug Noll taught these ladies survival skills through teaching them simple communication skills – how to listen, really listen, reframe and to communicate. By learning how to listen – and I mean truly listen to what another is saying – and then acknowledging what the speaker said by repeating it back, they are showing the speaker that she is being heard. As a consequence of learning and using this simple skill, these ladies are slowly reducing the conflict and violence within the prison. Rather than using pepper spray (which costs the state $1,000 in time and paperwork) to break up a potentially violent situation, the prison guards will call in these ladies to mediate it. . . and, at times, it works. They are slowing bringing “peace” to the prison; less conflict and violence and more  listening and reframing.

            More importantly, the outlook on life of these honorees has changed. They are no longer shut down emotionally, defensive, afraid and seeing violence as the only way to resolve things. They have a reason to greet each new day; they have hope. Through learning and employing these simple communication skills – how to listen and reframe – they have begun to trust not only each other but themselves, to open up and share their emotions and feelings. They provide each other with self-esteem and confidence by acknowledging that they are, through listening and reframing, indeed, listening to the speaker and paying attention. For the first time in their lives, these ladies feel important; someone cares about them. Their words, thoughts and feelings do matter to someone.

            It is sad that first, the social services programs let these ladies down by not  rescuing them from their domestic violence situations; that the judicial and corrections systems have let them down and that it took Laurel Kaufer and Doug Noll to come to their aid: to go outside the box, beneath the line, figure out what the needs and interests of these ladies are and to help them not only meet them but rise well above the challenge!

            After the presentation was over, I walked away from the prison deep in thought, a changed person. For most of the 275 mile drive home, I could not get what I witnessed out of my mind (and I still can’t). How could something so simple – communication skills – have such a profound and lasting impact on a prison population to the point of slowly bringing a little bit of “peace’ within its barbed wired concrete walls?

            It is oxymoronic that SCMA awards its “Peacemaker” award to 15  inmates, most of whom are serving life sentences, but, after being with these ladies, it makes perfect sense to me. I salute them: Barbara Chavez, Breanne Eldridge, Penny Greer, Shelbi Harris, Anna Humiston, Sara Jackson-Reynolds, Christine Loyd, Candace MacDonald, Mianta McKnight, Suzy Mellen, Betty Mills, Jan Ritchey, Susan Russo, Robyn Sotelo, and Marta Ulen. Congratulations!

            On November 6, 2010 at its annual conference, SCMA will formally announce this award, using video and pictures to share my profound experience with everyone. Come Join Us!

            . . .Just something to think about.!

If you enjoy this blog, and want to receive it weekly via RSS Feed, click here:http://www.pgpmediation.com/feed/http://www.pgpmediation.com/feed/ or via FeedBurner email subscription, then enter your email address under the word “Subscribe” to the above right and click on the “Subscribe” button